ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
and its that hyperbolic nonsense that shows your position is so very weak
Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013
- Thread starter DNAprotection
- Start date
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
You reap what you sow ginga = nonsense.
What you don't seem to understand is the nature of the current brand of capitalism.
The model says to not only defeat your competition, but to render it non existent.
Cannabis provides the perfect inroad for Monsanto's ultimate goals in all other areas, in other words cannabis will be the first plant etc that they will achieve the 'only legal variety' status and from there they will proceed just as they have done through case law.
Eventually the case law will establish that any naturally occurring varieties of any plant that they have a GE counterpart for will be considered a genetic contamination threat to their patent protected intellectual properties.
There is no law/statute that protects the naturally occurring varieties at present and so they have no basis for any 'equal protection' as Monsanto varieties do, such presents the need for an Act such as this.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
lol this hysterical ranting by you is hilarious it has such a chicken little feel to it all
you have no evidence to back any of it up apart from a deep down fear of monsanto (having personally read up on the monsanto debacle im bettering yhour fear is based on lies)
so you take this scary company imagine the worst thing your tiny imagination can muster then come here all hysterical wanting us to belive this bullshit:
Because you know monsanto = bad
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
It seems I should reiterate...
This is just a small sample of my imagination:
- [h=3]Monsanto ~ Saved Seed and Farmer Lawsuits[/h]www.monsanto.com News & Views Issues_Answers
Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 144 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you ... Saved Seed and Farmer Lawsuits ...
-
[h=3]Farmers' lawsuit against Monsanto heads back to federal court | The ...[/h]www.kjonline.com/.../federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.html
Nov 23, 2012 A lawsuit filed by a nationwide consortium of farmers against the chemical giant Monsanto concerning genetically modified seeds is headed for ...
-
[h=3]Monsanto wins lawsuit against Indiana soybean farmer | MNN ...[/h]www.mnn.com Your Home Organic Farming & Gardening
Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed company, has prevailed in another lawsuit against a U.S. farmer, earning a ruling from a federal appeals court that prote.
-
[h=3]Monsanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
The Center for Food Safety has listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations. The usual claim involves violation of a ...
The World According - Monsanto Canada Inc. v. - Monsanto House of the Future
-
[h=3]Farmers defend their right to grow food against Monsanto Alex ...[/h]www.infowars.com/farmers-defend-their-right-to-grow-food-against-...
Apr 15, 2012 Between 1997 and 2010, in fact, Monsanto actually admits to having filed at least 144 lawsuits against farmers, and settled another 700 cases ...
-
[h=3]Family Farmers Lawsuit Against Monsanto Grows - Mother Earth News[/h]www.motherearthnews.com/...farming/lawsuit-against-monsanto-...
Jul 17, 2012 Prominent allies join the effort to reinstate the challenge to Monsanto patents from farmers who have been threatened with patent infringement.
-
[h=3]Landmark Family Farmers Lawsuit Against Monsanto Grows[/h]readersupportednews.org/...farm.../12480-landmark-family-farmers-l...
Jul 19, 2012 Excerpt: "The brief by the law professors and the brief by the non-profit organizations were filed in support of over 300,000 individuals and ...
-
[h=3]Monsanto vs Schmeiser[/h]www.percyschmeiser.com/
Percy Schmeiser is victorious in his lawsuit against Monsanto for the ... named 2007 Winners of the Right Livelihood Award for their pursuit of farmer's rights.
-
[h=3]Monsanto wins lawsuit against Indiana soybean farmer | Reuters[/h]www.reuters.com/.../us-monsanto-lawsuit-idUSTRE78K79O2011092...
Sep 21, 2011 (Reuters) - Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed company, has prevailed in another lawsuit against a U.S. farmer, earning a ruling from a ...
-
[h=3]Farmers advance in their suit against Monsanto | Grist[/h]grist.org/industrial.../farmers-advance-in-their-suit-against-monsanto/
Feb 10, 2012 According to PUBPAT, between 1997 and April 2010, Monsanto filed 144 lawsuits against farmers for patent infringement, and more than 500 ...
The pages on Monsanto's and others law suits in this area are practically endless.
I think you are in denial.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
He's trying to be that cool, "proactive", forward thinking hippy college kid. He's probably mad for all that homeopathy and all that other bullshit too.
So pray, do tell DNAprotection, have you any sort of proof that Monsanto is trying to keep "normal" weed banned and their own super-weed being the only legal option? IF it was the case (and that's a VERY tentative if), why do you have a problem if its an improvement on previous varieties?
What about an equatorial sativa with huge yields, pest resistance and short flowering time?
And why would you not still be able to buy your own seeds from anywhere else in the world and grow it yourself?
Strange that some dolts seem to think that a legalisation situation is less safe for end users than the current system of item 9 being "ILLEGAL!!".
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
lol yeah i've read all that before the farmers went into a contractual agreement with monsanto and then thought they stick 2 fingers up at them
the farmers were in the wrong and monsanto had the right to sue them for it
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Also each article posted above says there was 144 cases, he thinks repeating it several times will give the illusion that its more than 144 cases.
So DNA protection, if I take a few Xanax, put them in a different box, then sell them, should I not be subject to patent law either?
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
It starts small, you get a politician in your back pocket, set up a committee, make some laws, and wallah, Your competition is history.
Each Florida field-grown tomato shipped out of Florida is regulated by a Federal Marketing Order that controls grade, size, quality and maturity.
http://www.floridatomatoes.org/AboutUs.aspx
Each Florida field-grown tomato shipped out of Florida is regulated by a Federal Marketing Order that controls grade, size, quality and maturity.
http://www.floridatomatoes.org/AboutUs.aspx
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
no mention about breed in there though
seems you can blame the producers for the bland taste
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Thats quality control and is beneficial to all.Not really the point of the conversation, but that site gives growers tips and everything, they're not the boogeyman you're looking for. Personally, I think the free market should deal with it, but if Floridians want to push their domestic produce that's also their choice.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
It is becoming seemingly apparent that some of the folks here have a different concept of the words 'own' and 'right' from mine, and that's all good just as long as it survives the test of law.
The law, in terms of 'rights', can be viewed as a scale where lets say my 'rights' are on one side of the scale and yours are on the other.
Either side can exercise said rights just as long and up until such aerobics begin to disturb the other side of the scale in such a way as to interfere with the exercise happening elsewhere by others.
In other words the exercising of your 'rights' cannot unduly interfere with someone else exercising their rights.
The law, in terms of 'ownership' requires a valid claim to said ownership.
It seems that some here think that the only things they own are that which is brought by corporations or by 'man' etc such as a car or a house etc, but for me the greatest 'ownership' responsibility comes in the area of what we all commonly own together.
Nature is one such place where we all have equal reach and responsibility to (and are a part of).
Monsanto et al seeks to impose, or do extreme aerobics on one side of the scale where you and I and all others are on the other side in terms of ownership and exercise. The extreme aerobics in effect begin not only to shake the scale for us all, but attempts to rid us of the scale all together.
This Act only seeks equal protection for yours mine and our rights with respect to 'the commons' as well as the 'rights' of 'the commons' itself if you can understand that concept...
The law, in terms of 'rights', can be viewed as a scale where lets say my 'rights' are on one side of the scale and yours are on the other.
Either side can exercise said rights just as long and up until such aerobics begin to disturb the other side of the scale in such a way as to interfere with the exercise happening elsewhere by others.
In other words the exercising of your 'rights' cannot unduly interfere with someone else exercising their rights.
The law, in terms of 'ownership' requires a valid claim to said ownership.
It seems that some here think that the only things they own are that which is brought by corporations or by 'man' etc such as a car or a house etc, but for me the greatest 'ownership' responsibility comes in the area of what we all commonly own together.
Nature is one such place where we all have equal reach and responsibility to (and are a part of).
Monsanto et al seeks to impose, or do extreme aerobics on one side of the scale where you and I and all others are on the other side in terms of ownership and exercise. The extreme aerobics in effect begin not only to shake the scale for us all, but attempts to rid us of the scale all together.
This Act only seeks equal protection for yours mine and our rights with respect to 'the commons' as well as the 'rights' of 'the commons' itself if you can understand that concept...
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Bullshit, it talks about God and banning GM organisms from California.
Did YOU even read it?!
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
get your head out of your arse for a second and explain why monsanto shouldnt have patent rights
and make sure you do it in plain text rather than your flowery bullshit that says nothing of relevence
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
What you're missing here is the fact the market is RIGGED. Don't like salad or canning tomato's, you can always get Heirloom and Ugly's but they MUST be a trademark brand!(According to the Federal not State Government)
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
where is the federal law that says that?
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
Well, not that you will (I know you all 'care' so much about the 'facts' of this discussion lol), you can start your investigation here:
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/hemp/iha/jiha6101.html
Then maybe go here:
http://gmocannabiswatch.blogspot.com/
If one adds up all the info contained in those links its hard to imagine one would not at least be asking the question.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Wow, two anti GM sites.
First link is related to killing cannabis altogether with fungi.
The second is related to Patent law.
Where is the relevance to a company wanting to produce GM plants?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
do you ven understand what "proof" means??
"The first mention of the possibility of cannabis being genetically modified I could find was cited in a document leaked to Cannabis Culture back in 2000, which read in part: "Cannabis seeds from Monsanto are almost definitely genetically engineered. Genetically engineered plants can be patented, and it is in Monsanto's best interest to hold a patent on any seed they sell. Seed patents ensure that companies like Monsanto can continue to profit from seeds from year to year, as farmers are legally bound to buy patented seeds from the patent holder rather than simply store them from the last year's crop.”
now aside from the fact that monsanto do not produce cannabis seeds proof isnt about making people "asking the question"
proof is about definative answers
that quote isnt about GMO cannabis and doesnt even mention monsanto
the "proof" in that one amounts to this
"The first mention of the possibility of cannabis being genetically modified I could find was cited in a document leaked to Cannabis Culture back in 2000, which read in part: "Cannabis seeds from Monsanto are almost definitely genetically engineered. Genetically engineered plants can be patented, and it is in Monsanto's best interest to hold a patent on any seed they sell. Seed patents ensure that companies like Monsanto can continue to profit from seeds from year to year, as farmers are legally bound to buy patented seeds from the patent holder rather than simply store them from the last year's crop.”
now aside from the fact that monsanto do not produce cannabis seeds proof isnt about making people "asking the question"
proof is about definative answers